Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 01:56:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
Subject: M-I: Re: M-SCI: dialectical materialism (fwd)


Comrades,

Two posts collected here that are of relevance. This is an ongoing
discussion between J. Paulo Monteiro and me. These were posted first only
to M-SCI because I had used up my three posts in M-I. I think that in many
ways discussions of the state in capitalism are undertheorized. I have
taken up a structuralist argument in these posts. The final paragraph of
the second post regarding intraclass conflict is an antidote to simplistic
conceptualizations of the state (not suggesting here that Monteiro holds a
simplistic understanding). 

AA

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:23:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin-AT-utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
To: "J. Paulo Monteiro" <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt>
Cc: marxism-and-sciences-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: M-SCI: dialectical materialism

Paulo,

Sorry about your name. My computer does not reproduce the character so I
am not even sure what it would look like in correct form. I will refer to
you as Paulo, if that is satisfactory. Thanks you for bringing that to my
attention.

First, I should say that you may want society to be very clean and simple,
but it is not, nor can it be represented that way without gross
simplification. Moreover, social reality cannot be reduced to its
components without loss of intelligibility regarding the whole. I am not
going to argue an ideological conception of social reality, but rather a
scientific and dialectical one. Such a model of society is inherently
contradictory because social reality under class relations (and other
hierarchically constituted differential relations) is contradictory. This
means that, in the current discussion, the ideas that rule over the
proletariat must always be connected to the mode of production under
capitalist social relations, and the direct producers of material, and
hence, ideological reality are the proletariat (many of whom, and
particularly the principals under scrutiny here, occupy contradictory
class locations). I make no apologies for the complexity (or however you
might wish to characterize it) of my view.

Second, your argument appears generally contrary to the premise of
historical materialism. You would have the ideas of the ruling class
descend from the heavens, when in fact ideas emerges from the real
material and social relations of production, are co-opted and subverted by
the ruling class. I have tried to understand the problem you have my
orthodoxy in this regard (which is not, as you suggest, derived from
Marx's more Hegelian writings, but rather from Marx's mature theoretical
constructions, and you should know this in light of you self-professed
familiarity with Marx's work). Granted, the superstructure possesses the
capacity to feed back on the base, hence the ability of the ruling class
to invert and subvert ideational production among those they control, but
to suggest such a complete reversal of the direction of causality demanded
by historical materialism is to contradict the Marxian model (which is
fine if you want to proceed out of any number of subjectivist models of
social reality). You are proceeding very undialectically, in my view. You
are ignoring the parameters of the thinkable (social logic) that emerges
>from the social and material structure of the capitalist mode of
production and hence mystifying the impact of civil society in
reproducting capitalist relations.

Third, my argument regarding the autonomy of the state is derived from
Marx's theoretical work, not from Engels' polemical statements in the
Manifesto. I do not observe Marxist doctrine. I employ Marxian theory to
understand social reality. It is widely understood that Marx's arguments
are far more subtle than the view you put forward on this list. The
capitalist state does not work for capitalist specifically, and rarely for
the capitalist class, but rather for CAPITALISM, i.e. the system of
capitalism. It is only by remaining relatively autonomous that the state
is continually functional for the maintenance of capitalism. Furthermore,
you have made a giant leap of faith regarding my understanding of world
history. The state is that organ that mediates between the rulers and the
ruled, and it arises in capitalism from the *structural* contradictions of
this conflict, NOT from the willful creation and machinations of the
ruling class. True, the state has existed in many forms, the city-state,
the nation-state, etc., and the state, a superstructural element
(following Marx now), will reflect the character of the dominant mode of
production. And it is even the case that the degree of structural
segregation between the economy and the polity will determine the degree
to which any one element of the ruling class will have control over the
functioning of the state apparatus. But the character of the state is
historically specific, and therefore the general abstraction of the state
is not a cookbook for analyzing any specific instance of the state, but
rather a heuristic device that alerts us to very general features which to
attend. Hence, your conception of the nature and function of the state in
capitalist social formations is extremely underdeveloped if you continue
to hold a conspiratorial conception of ruling class-state behavior under
conditions of structural segregation of economy and polity that is the
core feature of capitalist social relations vis-a-vis the capitalist
state. 

Fourth, if you do not wish to continue this discussion, don't threaten me,
just do it. I have nothing invested in rehashing commonly understood
theoretical and empirical accounts of social reality. I am not going to be
a part of another debate that deteriorates into macho chest pounding.

Peace,
Andrew Austin
--------------

On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Joco Paulo Monteiro wrote:
> 
> The bourgeoisie takes part in the material and social relations of
> production. It owns the means of production and purchases labour power
> on the market with the purpose of making a profit that allows it to
> accumulate more capital. Their ideas originate from this very material
> practice, located in the very core of the process of the production of
> social existence. If their representations of society are distorted,
> this is because of the position it occupies there and the general
> division between mental and manual labour. What's undialectical is to
> suppose that all ideas must somehow originate unilaterally from the pure
> clash of the hammer on the anvil, ascend upstairs to the bourgeoisie's
> avid ears, then be shrewdly twisted upside down and re-envoyed down
> again. Ah, the treacherous bastards. This looks like the magic bullet
> theory on the JFK killing.

We are moving very close to agreement here! My argument asserts that ideas
emerge from the structure of capitalism. This structure set parameters on
a social logic. The working class produces the means and the raw materials
for ideological production and many of the finished ideological and
cultural products. Because the bourgeosie owns the means of production and
raw materials, and controls the production process and the distribution of
finished products, they control the form and presentation of ideology. But
the content is not solely capitalist. For example, the co-optation of the
symbolic culture produced by the various liberation movements of the 1960s
by the capitalist class inverted the collectivist and liberatory impulses
of the worker into expressions of consumerism and individualism. Certainly
ideological production does not originate entirely in blue-collar cultural
and ideological production. As I stated in previous posts, production of
ideological materials occurs up and down the class structure, and carries
embedded in it a class character. 
 
> > It is only by remaining relatively autonomous that the state
> > is continually functional for the maintenance of capitalism. 
> 
> Damn it, you ruined it again. With this you are saying that capitalism
> is as much the capitalist's as the worker's system.

No! I am not saying this at all. The state has to be relatively autonomous
to mediate INTRAclass conflict (such as the conflict between capitalist
sectors, or between national and international bourgeoisie, etc., etc.,
etc.). Moreover, the capitalist state has to be responsive to some worker
demands, such as social welfare, labor legislation, etc. The state's role
is to keep capitalism functioning, to keep the capital accumulation
process intact and expanding. It can only do this by looking out for the
long-range best interests of the capitalist SYSTEM, and this may involves
co-optation and pacification of the working class.
 
As for how this debate is going? It is on track, my friend. I only meant
to nip it in the bud.
 
Regards,
Andrew Austin





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---